Rethinking the Way We Gather Academic Reorganization of the Faculty in the of Arts & Sciences Contents

Executive Summary I. Background 2 II. Charge and Process of ASARC 3 III. Data Interpretation and Research Findings 4 The Faculty Survey 4 Divisional Models at other Institutions 4 Addressing Campus Inefficiencies 5 IV. Proposed Model: Divisional Advisory Committees 5 Features of the DAC Model 7 DAC Membership and Leadership 7 DAC Functions Broken Down by Task 7 Proposed DAC Calendar 8 Benefits of DAC model 8 V. Continuous Improvements in Technology 8 VI. Equity in Faculty Committee Service 9 VII. Compensation and Workload Reduction for Chairs of Academic Departments and Programs 10 New Chair Compensation Model 10 VIII. Centralization of Tasks 11 IX. Reduction in Operational Costs through Administrative Restructuring 11 X. Implementation: Fostering Bottom-up Collaboration 12 XI. Next Steps 12 XII. FAQs 12 XIII. Appendix 15

Arts & Sciences Administrative Reorganization Committee (ASARC) | Final Report | CF Endorsed | May 6, 2020

Committee Members: Cynthia Chapman, Professor, Religion, ASARC Co-Chair (EPPC) Matthew Elrod, Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, ASARC Co-Chair (CFC) David Kamitsuka, Dean, Arts & Sciences Laura Baudot, Associate Dean, Arts & Sciences Julia Christensen, Associate Professor, Studio Art Sebastiaan Faber, Professor, Hispanic Studies Elizabeth Hamilton, Associate Dean, Arts & Sciences Caitlin Kelley, Class of 2020, Student Senate Leslie Kwakye, Associate Professor, Neuroscience Amy Margaris, Associate Professor, Anthropology Renee Romano, Professor, History Michael Parkin, Professor, Politics Christopher Trinacty, Associate Professor, Classics Rethinking the Way We Gather

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY in savings) through a decline, over the next four years, in the number of Administrative and Professional Staff and The Arts & Sciences Academic Reorganization Committee, or Administrative Assistant positions, achieved as much as possible ASARC, proposes a suite of organizational and operational changes through attrition. to enhance the quality of our academic programs, improve our capacity to respond to rapid changes in the landscape of higher education, and realize substantial cost savings. These changes I. BACKGROUND work in concert to facilitate cross-departmental and inter-office The Arts & Sciences Administrative Reorganization Committee collaboration while prioritizing our educational mission and (ASARC) has been charged with exploring and developing an maintaining departmental identity. implementation plan in response to the recommendation in the

One Oberlin final report for an academic reorganization of the ASARC proposes that departmental representatives convene in five College of the Arts & Sciences. The One Oberlin Report, which Divisional Advisory Committees, or DACs, in the Natural Sciences was endorsed by the General Faculty and the Board of Trustees, and Mathematics, Social Sciences, the Practicing Arts, Languages proposed a model for the “creation of new academic divisions that and Cultures, and the Humanities and Humanistic Social Sciences, would organize and undertake much of the outward-facing work groupings based on curricular affinity and shared reliance on now taking place at the departmental level with varying degrees facilities or event and performance programming. DACs will be of effectiveness.” That model envisioned six to eight divisions led by conveners and will meet monthly for strategic consultation, overseeing much of the work that now typically takes place at the collaboration, and coordination of curricular and broader department level: equipment maintenance, budget management, institutional initiatives. They will serve as a communications catalog copy, and space use among others. The proposed model hub between departments and administrative offices including reduced the role of department chairs, creating instead department Admissions, Advancement, Communications, Facilities, the heads who would assist divisional chairs but who would not receive AARC, the Career Development Center, and the A&S Dean’s office. stipends or course releases for their work. With this model, the DACs will consult and where appropriate collaborate on position AAPR sought to achieve four important broad goals: requests, event planning, and mentoring of junior faculty. DACs will share best practices across departments to improve quality, 1. Increase inter- and multidisciplinary collaboration for both increase efficiency, and expand interdisciplinary collaboration for teaching and scholarship while respecting the strengths of teaching and scholarship. The main purpose of the DACs will be intensive disciplinary education; to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of decision-making and 2. Increase the College of Arts & Science’s ability to adapt information-sharing among and between departments and central rapidly and comprehensively to the ever-changing academic offices, so that Arts & Sciences, and Oberlin College as a whole, are environment and capitalize on new opportunities; in a better position to weather the difficult times ahead. 3. Improve the overall quality and consistency of academic administration, including the collaboration with the In support of the DAC model, ASARC proposes the following conservatory and non-academic units across the institution, and additional changes: enhance communications across campus as well as develop better • Continuous improvement in technology to streamline time- messaging about our high quality to the world; consuming mundane work for faculty related to the processes of personnel review, position requests, and reimbursement. 4. Enhance administrative efficiencies so as to realize substantial reductions to baseline operating costs and increase access to • A model for equity in faculty committee service that introduces classes through the reduction of faculty course releases for a point system to bring transparency to formal committee administration. service. • A new chair compensation model to achieve equity and The model also sought to achieve the following concrete outcomes: transparency and reduce the number of chair course releases • Saving roughly $750,000 per year (preliminary estimate) to accommodate an increase in the number of Arts & Sciences achieved through consolidation of administrative staffing students. The reduction in course releases is paired with a made possible by greater administrative efficiency and greater reduction of chair workload. utilization of technologies that can support such needs; • The centralization of tasks through the creation of offices for • Recovering four full-time equivalents (FTE) amounting to 18 travel and event planning, billing, and reimbursement. courses in department chair course releases, which: a) reduces • Reduction in operational costs (constituting about $750,000 the need for visiting professors; b) adds potential support for


the First Year Seminar Program; c) adds teaching capacity barriers to the kind of flexibility and nimbleness that institutions for the 100-student addition to the College (shift from the will need to survive in the competitive landscape of higher Conservatory) d) helps alleviate problems with access to classes, education. Peter Stokes and Chris Slatter, managers in the higher especially for first and second years; education practice at Huron Consulting Group, argue that “departmental structures can be inflexible and inhibit creative • Enhancing the breadth of consultation on future strategic responses to changing market expectations.” The faculty response additions and reductions of faculty lines; to anticipated structural change is often to “hunker down,” they • Reducing administrative redundancies and inefficiencies across suggest, with many faculty members and department chairs the Arts & Sciences that needlessly consume faculty and staff seeking “to preserve the structures that they know rather than risk time and effort and reduce job satisfaction; reorganizing in ways that merge departments or explicitly require • Enhancing engagement with alumni across the Arts & Sciences collaboration with the professional disciplines—even if such as well as better communication strategies to convey our high changes might deliver more value to the students.” 2 Daniel Rich, quality to the world. provost of the University of Delaware and professor of urban affairs, public policy, and political science, describes universities as “places The AAPR recommendation for academic restructuring reflects at which large numbers of faculty and students study change, debate a challenging truth about the state of higher education: given the change, and sometimes advocate change, but they are also places current landscape, only institutions that can adapt quickly and where faculty are renowned for avoiding and resisting change, thoughtfully to changes in the environment are likely to survive. particularly change in their own organization and operations.” The AAPR recognized that the mounting challenges facing small Restructuring, Rich notes, must balance maintaining academic core private liberal arts like Oberlin make it urgent that we priorities with increasing market competitiveness, but restructuring take action to make our processes and structures more nimble. in some fashion may no longer be a choice. As Rich notes, “the A looming enrollment crisis—the number of college-age young much more competitive higher education marketplace...assigns people is predicted to fall by 15 percent nationwide in 2025, with an benefits and penalties to institutions that do and do not respond 3 even greater decrease in states from which Oberlin has traditionally effectively.” Oberlin, in short, is not alone in recognizing that drawn students—will affect schools across the country. Some its existing academic structures may inhibit its ability to respond experts predict that as many as half of American colleges and effectively to the new environment in which it finds itself. universities may be forced to close in the next fifteen years.1 Small liberal arts colleges, moreover, face increasing pressure to In this report, we describe our process and findings to date and demonstrate the value of their education and to prove to skeptical offer an alternative model to that proposed by the AAPR, one parents and students that their high tuition costs are justified. They that we believe will help improve efficiency, achieve the necessary also face increased competition from larger state universities that savings, and make Oberlin more nimble, while offering more of a have moved to create honors colleges that seek to offer the same bottom-up approach than the top-down divisional reorganization kind of education that a small private college does at a significantly outlined in the One Oberlin report. lower cost. For Oberlin to thrive in this environment, we will need to communicate the value of the education we offer more clearly, II. CHARGE AND PROCESS OF ASARC showcase the positive outcomes of a more convincingly, operate more efficiently, and adopt structures that The One Oberlin Final Report charged CFC and EPPC with enable us to respond quickly and effectively to changes in higher creating a committee to assess the model proposed by the AAPR, to education. decide whether the divisional model offered the best way to achieve the goals outlined in the report, and to offer alternative methods of Experts surveying the current environment point to traditional achieving the goals if necessary. The ASARC Committee includes academic structures and a general resistance to change as key two members each of EPPC and CFC, each elected by the larger

1 students-predicted-to-fall-by-more-than-15-after-the-year-2025/ Scott Carlson, in his article “Sustaining the College Business Model: How to shore up institutions now and reinvent them for the future,” presents in stark terms the financial challenges that provide the urgency and imperative to restructure. Citing Nathan D. Grawe of , Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education, he warns that the population of high school graduates will starkly decline and around 2025 will “fall off a cliff.” The steepest population declines will be in the Northeast and Midwest. Only small pockets will reliably see growth: Rocky Mountain states and Texas (8). Other important factors for the financial sustainability of colleges and universities: Tuition has increased at two to three times the rate of inflation (8). Family incomes have stagnated or declined particularly after the 2008 recession (8). The average student tuition discount rate has reached 50% among liberal arts colleges (9). 2 Peter Stokes and Chris Slatter, “Sustaining the liberal arts requires organizational restructuring,” Inside Higher Ed (2016): 2. 3 Daniel Rich, “Academic Leadership and the Restructuring of Higher Education,” New Directions for Higher Education no. 134 (summer 2006): 44.

3 ACADEMIC REORGANIZATION OF THE FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES Rethinking the Way We Gather committees; three representatives from the dean’s office (including The Faculty Survey the dean himself); four members voted on by the college faculty; a The faculty survey, which ASARC administered in the fall semester, student; and two additional faculty members chosen by committee offered rich and varied data for ASARC to consider. With a 72 members to ensure ASARC’s diversity and representational breadth. 4 percent participation rate, faculty took the survey seriously, providing the committee with both aggregated quantitative results Our principal task for the fall semester was information gathering. and over 200 pages of anonymous individual qualitative responses. ASARC constructed and administered a survey of faculty and While survey results reflected a wide variety of opinions among teaching staff that sought feedback on the AAPR model and faculty about the proposed AAPR models and potential alternatives solicited ideas about alternative means for realizing the goals of the to it, several key patterns emerged.5 AAPR divisional model. We also formed subcommittees to explore: • Faculty generally seem content with the administrative existing divisional models at other institutions; the better use of functioning of their departments, and while most see value in the technology to achieve greater efficiencies and reduce work for goals of academic reorganization, there are concerns about how chairs; and campus offices and their interactions with departments. these goals might be achieved.

The data we gathered and the research we conducted demonstrate • There is widespread agreement that more could be done to both the importance of some kind of restructuring and several address administrative inefficiencies, improve college-wide serious drawbacks to the model proposed in the One Oberlin communication, and create more equitable faculty service loads. Report. The same data and research—outlined below—inform • With regard to reorganizing A&S, many faculty are concerned the alternative model that ASARC proposes for consideration by with implementing a “one-size-fits-all” model while some also the faculty. believe that smaller scale reform could achieve the four goals of academic reorganization. III. DATA INTERPRETATION AND RESEARCH FINDINGS • Faculty are significantly divided on the AAPR’s proposed divisional model. While there is opposition to replacing There are three key reasons why ASARC has moved away from department chairs with division chairs, there is also a sense that the top-down divisional model proposed by the AAPR. First, the the divisional model may be superior to the current department faculty survey reveals that while faculty endorse the overarching model when it comes to certain administrative tasks (e.g., goals and expected outcomes of the reorganization, many reimbursements, infrastructure management) and achieving the have deep and valid concerns about a “one-size-fits-all model” four goals of academic reorganization. and about creating additional layers of bureaucracy. Second, an analysis of reorganizations that have taken place at similar • Overall, there is a sense that some form of reorganization is institutions suggests that large-scale academic reorganizations necessary to address serious issues but many are concerned about undertaken primarily for financial reasons tend to fail or create the scale and potential disruptiveness of that reorganization. as many problems as they seek to solve. Finally, conversations with administrative offices across the institution suggest a The survey findings contributed to ASARC’s conclusion that range of inefficiencies that this campus must address which while our current structures need to change, the divisional model academic reorganization alone cannot solve. As a result, ASARC is proposed by the AAPR may not be the best fit for Oberlin. These proposing what we see as a hybrid model that leaves most of the concerns were reinforced in ASARC’s research on divisional models departmental organization intact while combining the strength of at other institutions. divisional groupings with a series of other initiatives to increase the flexibility and nimbleness of our academic structures. Divisional Models at other Institutions ASARC researched divisional models at , , and . We selected these three institutions because they are most similar in mission and profile

4 Once fully constituted, the committee chose two of its members to serve as co-chairs. The co-chairs set the meeting agendas and provided periodic updates at CF and Chair’s meetings. After weekly meetings throughout the fall, the ASARC committee met for two full-day retreats in January. The first meeting focused on summarizing the information from the survey as well as from the reports of subcommittees. The committee began at that meeting to sketch an alternative divisional model to that proposed by AAPR. New subcommittees were formed to conduct additional research in support of this alternative restructuring model. At our second full-day retreat, we worked out the details of our proposal. 5 It is important to remember that the qualitative responses were extensive and varied, and did not always line up perfectly with the quantitative results. As such, some readers may sense a slight disconnect between the strictly quantitative results reported in the appendix and the conclusions drawn in the white paper and discussed below (which are based on both qualitative and quantitative feedback).

4 ACADEMIC REORGANIZATION OF THE FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES Rethinking the Way We Gather to Oberlin. We also reviewed the literature on academic and offices—make clear that there is a need for innovation, clearer organizational restructuring in order to understand how efforts lines of communication, and better systems of accountability. of this nature have arisen within a context of severe current and The divisional model proposed by the AAPR would make it easier to address many of these issues, although it would not in itself anticipated financial challenges facing many institutions within necessarily solve them. higher education. We learned three main things from our conversations: In 2011, Berea undertook an academic restructuring very similar to 1. Many offices reported that the inefficiencies and frustrations that proposed by the AAPR. Their example is instructive in terms that they face are caused by a relatively small fraction of of the successes of the restructure; at the same time, it serves as a academic departments. In many cases, the offices felt that they cautionary tale for an academic reorganization that too radically had good procedures in place that the well-trained and attentive overhauls existing structures. While Berea has not returned to its chairs and AAs were using effectively. However, when those original pre-divisional model, and is currently working to refine its procedures were not followed, it created a large amount of work divisional structure, a significant amount of energy and labor has for them to remediate the situation. In some cases, the problems been expended on the assessment and refinement of the divisional seemed to arise from a lack of knowledge and/or training, while model. Furthermore, successes of the divisional model continue in other cases, the problems arose from a (perceived) more to be viewed with skepticism by faculty members because of the intentional lack of respect for procedures and/or deadlines. general perception of reorganization as a top-down imposition from the board of trustees out of purely financial motivations. 2. Some offices felt that working through the A&S Dean’s Office was the optimal way for them to interact with the academic unit Faculty satisfaction with Bard’s and Sarah Lawrence’s divisional and offered recommendations for how that support could be models are markedly different from Berea’s, but these institutions improved and increased. Both Admissions and the Advancement have long been organized by division, which is fundamental to Offices felt that having a point person in and communication the approach to at both institutions. through the Dean’s Office could help streamline inefficiencies. Bard’s divisional model was designed to encourage liberal arts Many offices also welcomed the opportunity for clearer lines of breadth, rather than replicating the model of the university and communication that they believed the divisional model would graduate programs’ approach of specialized knowledge in distinct offer and were excited about the kinds of conversations about fields. Faculty are hired into divisions and the divisional model is process, fundraising, and promotion that could take place fundamental to what it means to be a faculty member or student within divisions. The hybrid model that the ASARC is proposing at Bard. The divisional model at Bard is particularly effective for seeks to maintain these potential benefits of a divisional model disciplinary collaboration, event planning, and for maintaining without falling into some of the pitfalls that took place at an a fluidity between faculty and administration. As is the case for institution like Berea. Bard, Sarah Lawrence College has operated in a non-departmental 3. A range of issues we face need to be—and are currently being structure since its founding. All students at Sarah Lawrence addressed through technological solutions. These ongoing graduate with a B.A. in Liberal Arts, although they also choose a efforts [detailed later in the report] are vital to achieving greater disciplinary pathway to guide their studies. Faculty are hired as efficiencies at Oberlin. Technology cannot and will not solve members of “Faculty Groups,” rather than departments. These our problems, but the better use of existing technologies can faculty groups are interdisciplinary in nature, and different faculty make many currently time-consuming tasks (for example, groups can include faculty whose scholarship relates directly to the reimbursement process) much less onerous. For ASARC, faculty in other groups, depending on their specific field of study. the many current initiatives underway to improve operations through technology at Oberlin open up space to reconsider Addressing Campus Inefficiencies existing levels of compensation for administrative tasks like A good number of faculty in the survey raised the question of chairing and offer potential pathways to streamlining operations whether divisional reorganization would solve problems around beyond any academic restructuring. inefficient structures and processes on campus and worried that creating divisions on top of departments would serve to add layers of bureaucracy to an already overly bureaucratic institution IV. PROPOSED MODEL: DIVISIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES rather than streamlining our operations. Two subgroups of the Based on ASARC discussions of the data and research, we ASARC explored this broader question of how our campus propose to group together existing departments into a set of new currently works, where processes are effective, and where they administrative bodies called Divisional Advisory Committees break down. Their reviews—of the use of technology at the college (DACs). The DACs will streamline communication between and of the interactions between departments and administrative

5 ACADEMIC REORGANIZATION OF THE FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES Rethinking the Way We Gather departments/programs and central offices and will facilitate and • First, because the main goal of the new model is to improve encourage coordination, consultation, and collaboration around coordination, consultation, and collaboration across departments topics and challenges of central importance to Oberlin’s future. in a rapidly changing and challenging environment, the newly Most importantly, however, the DAC model will allow us to created divisions and accompanying DACs are purposely flexible rethink the way in which the College of Arts & Sciences operates. and adaptable. The model does not seek to create either a new Currently, most decision processes occur within and between the level of bureaucracy or a new set of silos. Nor does it seek to 39 departments and programs, on the one hand, and, on the other, undermine departmental autonomy. We envision the possibility elected committees (EPPC, CFC, GFC) or central administrative of any department, program, or committee participating in more offices (Dean’s Office, CIT, Admissions, Communications, than one DAC, for example, depending on the business at hand Registrar, Career Development Center, Advancement). The same is and their own compositional make-up (for instance Classics may true for processes aimed at gathering or distributing information, want to be part of the Humanities as well as the Languages and for example through chairs’ meetings. Our data indicates that in Cultures DACs for certain monthly meetings; see below). our current, highly decentralized structure, these processes are • Second, this model seeks to be bottom-up rather than top-down. often inefficient and ineffective. Worse, in some cases business that Although in what follows we suggest topics and challenges on is of central importance to the institution falls by the wayside, or which departments united in a DAC may choose to consult and happens in parallel, redundant undertakings across departments. collaborate, the model leaves a lot of agency to the DACs—in part We need better lines of communication. because we acknowledge that different programs and departments operate in very different ways, so that one size does not fit all. Therefore, the main purpose of the DACs will be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of decision-making and information- The model is also bottom-up in that it leaves the composition of the sharing among and between departments and central offices, so DACs up to the departments: ultimately, it is up to each department that Arts & Sciences, and Oberlin College as a whole, are in a better to decide which division it decides to join for what purpose. The position to weather the difficult times ahead. DACs will play a key main rationale informing the composition of a division may be: role in setting and achieving the institution’s goals, whether they are related to admissions, , budget, event programming, • curricular (similar pedagogies), or communication. Looking forward, the DAC structure can • disciplinary (neighboring or overlapping fields), or potentially create a generative structure that will allow nimble infrastructural (similar challenges in facilities management, for responses to future shifts in pedagogy and curriculum. We note that • example). the DAC model draws inspiration from existing interdepartmental committee practices among the Natural Science and Mathematics and Language and Cultures departments at Oberlin: namely, the The ASARC committee hopes and expects that conversations Science Advisory Committee, SAC, and the steering committee within DACs—which in practice will operate like agenda-driven overseeing the Oberlin Center for Languages and Cultures, OCLC. working groups, similar to the way the AAPR and ASARC itself have We believe that the DAC model achieves the four goals established operated—will lead to efficiencies and exciting innovations at the in the One Oberlin report, while avoiding those features of the level of: AAPR model about which the faculty surveyed most frequently • course offerings (e.g., shared introduction or capstone courses), expressed concerns: important administrative work being • curricular pathways (e.g., new majors, minors, or integrative done by department/program chairs without course release or concentrations), compensation; consolidation of influence among the divisional chairs without sufficient feedback from departments/programs; the • personnel appointments (e.g. tenure lines that structurally serve loss of departmental autonomy; repetition of work and additional more than one area), layers of bureaucracy. The model we put forward also meets the • personnel processes (e.g. mentoring of junior faculty), survey respondents’ expressed desires for increased curricular best administrative practices (chairing, assessment, diversity and collaboration and greater coordination of event planning, course • inclusion practices, etc.), scheduling, faculty position development requests, and strategic initiatives with Admissions, Advancement and Alumni, Career • support staff (e.g. shared facilities management, purchasing, etc.), Development, Communications, CIT, Facilities, and the A&S • administration (e.g., departments or programs deciding to merge Dean’s Office. or share a department chair on a rotating basis),

The model proposed by ASARC has two important features worth • event programming (e.g., invited speakers that serve multiple highlighting from the outset. areas, less fragmentation of potential audiences),


• student advising (e.g., shared work on internship opportunities of 5 divisional advisory committees: Natural Sciences and or career planning), and Mathematics; Social Science; Practicing Arts; Languages and Cultures; Humanities and Humanistic Social Sciences. • communication strategies (for purposes of recruitment or (Note that we have divided the humanities departments into Admissions, for example). three DACs because of the proportionally greater number of departments within the Humanities division.) The main We also believe that the DACs will allow departments and rationale for the divisional groupings is curricular affinity, as well programs to better identify their shared needs and challenges, as shared reliance on facilities and/or event and performance and to better articulate those needs and challenges to the central programming. Reflecting the flexibility of the model, however, offices and elected committees. In contrast, in our current this organizational structure may change as departments begin departmental model, different department chairs and individual to work together and discover that they prefer other groupings. faculty raise ideas or voice complaints independently, often leading to haphazard decisions. By speaking for multiple departments, a • Each department/program will choose one tenure-line decision or recommendation from the DACs will hold more weight. representative—preferably, but not necessarily, the department/ The Dean’s Office, on its part, is committed to responding formally program chair--to serve on the DAC. Departments, especially to requests and concerns coming from the DACs. those that represent multiple disciplines, may want to send representatives to more than one DAC, especially for meetings Features of the DAC Model that may relate to multiple facets of the work of a department or While the DACs are designed to be flexible and to evolve over time program, such as curricular planning. Serving on a DAC as the as necessary, they will share a basic common structure: regular representative for a department will count for 2 service points under the new service point system. • The model creates the figure of the divisional convener, a faculty person who chairs the DAC meetings and functions as the • Each DAC will be led by one convener. The convener will assist primary spokesperson for the division in its communication in setting meeting agendas and will oversee implementation or with central offices. support the Dean’s Office in implementation on a timely basis. The selection of conveners will follow the current practice for • There will be regular—in principle, monthly—meetings of the selection of department chairs. Departments/programs will DACs, with a handful of calendar-bound agenda items to discuss. nominate individuals who will then be vetted by the Dean’s (In practice, these meetings will replace the bulk of what are now Office. Conveners will serve a 2-year term with the possibility of chairs’ meetings.) DACs can certainly discuss other pertinent reappointment to additional terms. Convening a DAC will count topics at their monthly meetings, but by creating a basic list of for 3 service points under our new service point system. topics that will be discussed across all DACs each month, as a faculty, we can streamline tasks related to non-academic offices. • The Dean’s Office will be responsible for administering a training program for conveners. • For a specific DAC, agendas and minutes of each meeting will be emailed to all faculty whose departments and/or programs • DAC conveners will hold regular meetings with the staff of the belong to that DAC. These documents for all DACs will stored Dean’s Office. in an online archive such as Blackboard to ensure widespread • The Dean’s Office will provide administrative support for knowledge of the work of all DACs. the DAC and its convener. The Dean’s office will also support • DACs may be asked by the elected committees (EPPC, CFC, funding requests for shared initiatives at the DAC level as funds GFC), the Dean’s Office, or any of the other central offices, to are available. address specific agenda items or even to respond to specific, conjunctural challenges as they present themselves. In that DAC Functions Broken Down by Task context, the DACs would be less a working group than something º Curriculum: consultative/deliberative, information sharing, resembling a crisis response team. coordinating Every department will have to join a DAC (and may choose to • º Course planning and scheduling: coordinating where join multiple DACs) of their choice. Departments cannot choose appropriate not to participate in this new structure. º Facilities: consultative/deliberative, information sharing, coordinating DAC Membership and Leadership º Admissions: collaborative, coordinating, communication of We are proposing that the process start with the creation • the distinction of our academic programs


º CIT: consultative/deliberative, information sharing, Benefits of DAC model coordinating • Increased Curricular Collaboration: º Registrar: consultative/deliberative, information sharing, The DAC model provides a structure for increased curricular coordinating collaboration across departments, which we hope will result in more coordinated efforts between faculty and office personnel º Position requests EPPC & CFC: consultative/deliberative, and improve the College’s ability to adapt to emerging changes in information sharing higher education. At a time when resources are limited, the DACs º Event coordination: consultative/deliberative, information will encourage conversation about how campus resources can be sharing, coordinating, sharing funds where appropriate deployed most effectively to maintain––and even expand––our º Collaboration on career development initiatives with the curriculum. Career Development Center • More Streamlined and Effective Cross-Campus Communication º Leading-edge funds: the DAC convener oversees the use of DAC model allows for more intentional communication Leading Edge funds in consultation with the DAC between department representatives and key offices, along with accountability through the Dean’s Office. It also provides Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives º a structure for communication among departments to gain º Assessment: consultative/deliberative, information sharing, broader visibility and support within DACs, across the college, potentially collaborative and to the broader public. º Personnel mentoring: the DAC can serve to create a larger • Spaces for Innovation and Generative Ideas mentoring cohort for junior faculty in collaboration with the Creating a regular space for cross-departmental conversation and Gertrude B. Lemle Center for Teaching consultation will open up new avenues for innovation to occur on campus. These innovations could be curricular; they might º Accounts management and reimbursement: none relate to different technologies or communication strategies; º Personnel evaluation: none they could offer new forms of efficiencies and cost savings. The DAC model seeks to institutionalize the kinds of cross-campus Proposed DAC Calendar conversations that have been taking place in the last two years We propose the following basic calendar for focusing the agenda of that have served to facilitate positive and innovative change. the DACs at different meetings throughout the year: • More Streamlined and Efficient Work Structures September: Communications & Admissions; Faculty The DAC model works in tandem with efforts to reduce the development; diversity and inclusion workload of chairs to streamline and make more efficient the October: Curriculum and faculty positions advanced ways in which we do our work at Oberlin. DAC meetings will planning replace most chair meetings and will be sites for a meaningful exchange of ideas. These meetings will also offer more November: Technology support & website efficient ways for departments to connect with Admissions, December: Facilities improvements and course scheduling Communications, the Alumni Office, the Career Development coordination Center, and Advancement. January: Communications & Admissions (in anticipation of All Roads) In order for Oberlin College to achieve the goals outlined in the One Oberlin report, we are proposing a series of complementary February: Advancement priorities changes related to technology, committee service, department chair March: Curriculum and faculty positions (to advise EPPC duties and compensation, and the organization of administrative & CFC) support for departments and programs—that are designed to April: Admissions & Alumni Relations enhance the work of the DACs. These changes are outlined as follows: May: Event planning & Career Development Center collaborations for next year, Strategic planning for A&S and the Dean’s Office V. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY Additional agenda items may be added to meetings at the discretion We currently spend great amounts of time on work processes of the conveners and the Dean. that are manual, siloed, redundant, unreliable, and inefficient. Much essential data currently resides in data islands, systems,

8 ACADEMIC REORGANIZATION OF THE FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES Rethinking the Way We Gather or repositories that are not widely accessible to those who need • communications with faculty and staff as employees: from the information. Chairs, faculty members, governance committees, and interview and appointment process, to onboarding (recent: deans all need more accurate and reliable data in order to engage PeopleAdmin) in the reflection and interpretation that inform effective decision- • professional development of faculty: digital dossiers for making. personnel reviews (planned: faculty portfolio system)

Restructuring in the Arts & Sciences division should make • position requests: auto-filling certain elements such as staffing strategic use of technologies by bringing stakeholders and users histories and enrollment trends (planned: Banner module) together to develop informed, purposeful processes toward the • reimbursements: scanning receipts for electronic processing, adopted AAPR goals. Goals #3, improving the overall quality eliminating budget spreadsheet (proposed: Chrome River) of academic administration, and #4, enhancing administrative designing the curriculum: catalog copy, course scheduling efficiencies, are especially addressed by offices who are trying to • (recent: Curriculog) streamline administration and enhance administrative efficiencies. Technological upgrades and clearer processes would reduce the • enrollment management, registration and waitlists (ongoing: amount of time and effort that faculty and administrative assistants Banner module) spend on administrative tasks, freeing up time for faculty members • teaching: course design, instructional technology (ongoing: to focus more on Goals #1, increasing our inter- and multi- Blackboard) disciplinary collaboration, and #2, increasing our ability to adapt to the changing environment and capitalize on opportunities. • learning: student portfolios for integrative concentrations; media, equipment, and tech support for creative arts courses Process analysis, undertaken collaboratively, provides necessary, • feedback: electronic SETs (recent: Blackboard module) comprehensive understanding of our work and opportunities for assessment: tagging and tracking of coursework that meets improving both quality and efficiency. It is essential that users of • institutional learning goals technology have adequate and ongoing training. It is desirable that digital technologies be integrated and accessible to multiple units • facilities management: work order system (planned: TopDesk) on campus; technology systems need to speak to one another. It • governance: searchable repository of minutes and motions is equally desirable that a regular point person from departments or divisions should serve as liaisons to Communications and CIT. • committee work: Blackboard has served as a repository for In summary, technological initiatives must improve an existing records (recent: Box) process (capability, security, stability, efficiency) or facilitate a new • external communications: departmental newsletters; connections function and save time and/or money. The cost of implementation with alumni, social media (financial and time related to training and expertise-building) event planning must also be considered. And perhaps most importantly, all • stakeholders (faculty, administrative assistants, and relevant offices) must be included in the process to choose the technology to be VI. EQUITY IN FACULTY COMMITTEE SERVICE implemented - a function that DACs could readily facilitate. In the ASARC survey, faculty expressed concern about the equity Key areas in which technology does already or can improve our of faculty service on committees (i.e., College Faculty elected work (with ongoing, recent, planned, or proposed initiatives committees, program committees, curricular committees, and specified): appointed General Faculty committees). The current expectation is that after the first year of employment, faculty will serve on two to single sign-on system for all college software (recent: OKTA) • three elected/appointed committees, with a lighter load for faculty • communications with students using their preferred methods on the tenure track. from admissions to onboarding to advising to progress through graduation (planned: new customer relationship management ASARC analyzed committee service and found significant disparity (CRM) system with module for advising) in actual faculty committee service loads: roughly 30% of faculty have minimal committee service responsibilities, and roughly 10% • maintaining and accessing student records (planned: new CRM) of faculty have extremely heavy committee service responsibilities. • hiring and supervision of student employees; student payroll ASARC proposes to remedy this situation by implementing the (recent: TimeClockPlus) AAPR recommendation for a more transparent and quantifiable system for measuring faculty service on committees over time.


ASARC proposes a point system for committee service based on these groups would be weighted based on the relative amount of the level of work involved in service on a given committee (see work they typically generate for chairs, offering a more precise appendix) that also sets expectations for faculty committee service and objective calculation than is currently used. This is the type of loads over time. After their first year, tenure-track faculty will be formula that would be used for each department or program: expected to average 3 committee service points per year over a three-year period while tenured faculty will be expected to average Number of Tenure Track Faculty x 325 + Number of Tenured 4 committee service points per year, also over a three-year period. Faculty x 200 + Number of VAPs x 200 + Number of Other Staff This point system will help individual faculty and personnel x 100 + Three-Year Average Number of Graduating Majors x 10 committees set expectations for committee service and will ensure = total compensation points more equitable distribution of committee service responsibilities among our faculty. The point system will also generate quantitative After calculating the total compensation points for each data that can assist the committee assignment process, enable department or program, stipends and course releases would be the analysis of committee service patterns, including committee based on the following categories: size and composition, and help faculty plan and balance their committee service load relative to other obligations such as teaching and scholarship. Points Stipend Course Releases

While this proposal does not address concerns about other forms 0-499 $500 0 of service (e.g., department service, “invisible” service, other college service), ASARC supports the consideration of other systems that 500-999 $1000 0 would take this service into account. ASARC also recommends that consideration be given to the reduction or consolidation of 1000-1499 $1500 0 committees, as well as the number of faculty serving on some committees. DAC meetings during 2020-21 would be an effective 1500-1999 $2000 .5 forum for addressing how to more equitably distribute or to minimize service not counted as formal service. 2000-2999 $2500 1


New Chair Compensation Model All chairs would also receive 2 service points. Please see the The AAPR Divisional Model proposed the elimination of all course appendix for a draft version of the spreadsheet. releases and stipends for department and program chairs, saving 18 course releases for faculty administration. ASARC believes The compensation points for each department and program will be that compensation for chairing remains important, although at calculated in the preceding fall semester (based on projected faculty a slightly reduced level overall if the workload of chairs can be and staff levels and on the three-year rolling average of the number reduced at the same time. ASARC offers a new model to achieve of graduating majors) in order to determine the stipend and course this balance. release for the upcoming academic year. This early action should allow departments and programs to respond to any year-to-year Chair compensation is currently based on faculty FTE with fluctuations in the course release assignment. adjustments for certain departments, which has to date produced a somewhat opaque and unequal pattern of compensation. ASARC Current estimates suggest that this model will increase the total proposes the use of an objective formula for determining chair amount of stipends paid to chairs by about $17,000 while reducing compensation that more accurately captures the work done by the number of annual course releases by about 12, for a total chairs. This model would be based on the number of individuals estimated annual savings of $148,250. The courses to be saved with whom the chair works, rather than FTE, and would count are critical to ensuring student access to classes and academic the number of tenure-track, tenured, and visiting faculty along course coverage, including First-Year Seminars and other general with other staff and a three-year average of graduating majors. education courses. Chairs would have the opportunity to verify these numbers with the College’s Business Manager each year. Once verified, each of


Workload Reduction centralized offices and troubleshoot common problems (e.g. To balance the reduction of course releases for chairs, ASARC has similar talks scheduled at the same time). In addition, a centralized specific proposals to reduce the workload of chairs. First, many of “Switchboard” will offer a one-stop solution for all the questions the new technology initiatives listed above will reduce the work of faculty have about offices, operations, and policies. chairs. These include digital dossiers, auto-filling data on required forms such as position requests and performance reviews, the use IX. REDUCTION IN OPERATIONAL COSTS THROUGH of Curriculog to update the course catalog, and the migration to ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURING electronic SETS. In addition to these, we plan to automate the declaration of a major and minor and move the approval for One expected outcome of the One Oberlin final report is that transfer of credit online. Chairs could then meet with majors as roughly $750,000 in operational savings should be achieved a cohort rather than through individual drop-in office hours. through administrative efficiency and reorganization in the Arts & Second, the Dean’s Office has agreed to combine the departmental Sciences. This operational savings has only increased in importance year-end report with the assessment report and to reduce the with the financial disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. frequency of the report to every other year. CFC has approved the This operational savings should be pursued in ways that best elimination of the fourth-year progress towards tenure review. We enhance the quality of educational administration. For example, foresee DAC meetings replacing most chairs meetings, so the DACs experiential learning offices (e.g., Career Development, Fellowships, should not significantly increase the number of hours spent in Study Away, Undergraduate Research, Winter Term) are currently meetings. Chairs who serve on DACs will receive service points (see scattered across campus. Housing them together in a central below). In addition, we propose the creation of a shared services location would enhance the visibility of the offices to students and administrative support model to streamline some administrative would facilitate collaboration on programming and administration functions related to event planning (e.g., speaker contracts, hotel across the offices. That configuration would also allow savings in reservations, advertisement), business activities and travel (e.g., personnel costs while enhancing the quality and breadth of service purchasing, travel reservations, reimbursements), and some provided to students and faculty. personnel functions (e.g., compiling data relevant to personnel reviews). As noted above, some academic administrative functions could also be centralized in a “shared services” model to address a wide Beyond these recommendations, we foresee the DACs providing range of essential tasks such as event planning, reimbursements, a venue for ongoing improvements in our work processes. For purchasing, travel, personnel data compilation, etc. Employees example, we would like the DACs to work with EPPC to develop with specialized skills would provide efficient and effective better guidelines for VAP and TT position requests so that time administrative support in these areas. Still other tasks could be is not wasted asking for a position that has no chance of being automated through the use of available technologies (e.g., SETs granted in a given year. The faculty survey indicated that the and course enrollment waitlist). The responsibilities of academic quality of chairing is uneven across departments and that we administrative and educational support staff members would be do not offer adequate training in how to be an effective chair. substantially reduced because several of their current duties would The DACs will provide a venue where new chairs can learn best be performed by shared services administrative assistants, creating practices from more experienced chairs, including, for example, opportunities for increased support for faculty and students in how to delegate work within a department, how to handle complex academic departments. The shared services model, however, has personnel issues, how to understand and best work within OCOPE limits because of the importance of direct service in support of AA contracts, and how to understand and manage departmental students, faculty, and visitors within academic buildings. budgets most effectively. Together, the enhanced use of technology and the centralization VIII. CENTRALIZATION OF TASKS of several time-consuming administrative tasks would allow a reduction, over time, in the number of A&PS and AA positions, ASARC has identified certain tasks (e.g., travel, reimbursements, helping to achieve the necessary operational savings by 2024-25. events planning) that are currently inefficient and oftentimes To the extent possible, Human Resources and the A&S Dean’s problematic for departments to oversee. We envision the creation Office will work together to consolidate positions through attrition, of centralized offices that specialize in these tasks, which would minimizing disruption and displacement of employees. allow faculty to focus on the most important facets of their job: teaching, research, advising, and service. Simple electronic forms will allow faculty to submit the required information to these


X. IMPLEMENTATION: FOSTERING BOTTOM-UP section IV. It is our sense that multidisciplinary departments COLLABORATION and programs will only need to send representatives to multiple DACs for the October meeting (for faculty position advanced ASARC hopes to encourage a bottom-up, organic process that planning) and the February meeting (for Advancement permits departments and programs to collaborate in ways that priorities). All other agenda items can be addressed fully through are most helpful and appropriate to them, and which recognizes representation on one DAC. that there is a spectrum of closeness of collaboration, range of scope of collaboration, and intensity of resulting organizational Choose your Departmental or Program Representative to the restructuring. What these forms of collaboration have in common DAC: At the same meeting discuss and decide on who will be the is that they emerge out of the needs and desires of departments department or program’s representative to the DAC. This could themselves. Starting in the fall semester, DAC meetings will be the chair or possibly the person next in line to chair. substitute for most chair’s meetings. We imagine DAC meetings An interactive process (such as filling out a shared Google Doc) next academic year as a means for departments/programs to shape will be used for departments and programs to indicate their how their DAC will operate moving forward. The DACs would not chosen DAC assignment and representative. This process will be imposing a strict model of collaboration, so much as facilitating allow all departments and programs to see the grouping process a conversation that asks departments and programs to convene, in real time, which may assist some units in making their DAC figure out what works best for them, and come back with a plan. selection. One benefit could be that collaborating departments get to “keep” 3. 2020-2021 Academic Year: DAC meetings will begin in or ”use” some part of the efficiencies (e.g., chair compensation) September 2020 and will be held monthly for the 2020-2021 they generate to their own advantage. One can imagine an array of academic year. collaborations in which departments and programs might engage. For example, departments might: 4. September 2021: One-year preliminary review: DAC conveners will meet with the dean to provide feedback on the successes create something like a new academic unit that involves a full • and shortcomings of the model and make recommendations range of coordination for specific improvements. They will also report to CF at its first • formal merger of departments meeting in September 2021. • share/rotate chairs between two or more departments 5. A more comprehensive formal review will occur after three years • collaborate on one or more substantial administrative tasks (Fall 2023), which will include an assessment of the DAC model, (curriculum planning, event management, personnel reviews) the success of the service model in narrowing the distribution of committee work among the faculty, as well as surveys of chairs • share or specially designate the use of equipment, facilities, and offices to determine if workflow has improved in quality and or administrative resources (including AAs’ expertise) reduced in quantity.


1. May 2020: ASARC brings its final report to the College Faculty Who determines who belongs in which DAC? What about with a motion to vote to adopt the report. programs/ departments/ curricular committees that don’t fit 2. Late May 2020 Departmental Meetings: Choose a DAC: neatly into any one DAC? Each department or program should call a meeting in May to Each department/program gets to choose for itself which DAC it discuss and decide which DAC your department will consider would like to join. Department DAC representatives are free to as its primary DAC. For most departments, representation on attend any DAC meeting that they feel has agenda items relevant to one DAC will be enough, and the choice of which DAC will be their departments. For most departments, even multi-disciplinary obvious. Some departments may have curricular affinity with departments and programs, one DAC will be sufficient to address several of the DACs, and these departments should choose the monthly agenda items. one DAC as their primary administrative home. This decision does not have to be permanent or binding. Departments Could certain program committees and integrative may decide after a year or more to switch to a different DAC. concentrations join DACs? Multidisciplinary departments and programs will not need Yes, particularly if they have faculty lines. to have full-time representation on several DACs. Please read through the monthly agenda items for DAC meetings under


What power do DACs or DAC conveners have? How will the effectiveness of DACs and the overall ASARC DACs are consultative but intentionally structured bodies whose proposal be assessed? direct channels to campus offices will help departments advocate DACs are meant to be flexible and adaptable over time. We for shared goals. The Dean’s Office is committed to responding to recognize that the College will need several years to assess the requests and concerns coming from the DACs. effectiveness of the various components of the ASARC proposal (e.g., DAC structure, service points model, chair/office workflow To whom are the DACs accountable? quality and quantity) and make adjustments accordingly. The DAC First and foremost to their own departments and to the faculty conveners, in collaboration with the Dean’s Office, will review the as a whole. They are also accountable to the Dean’s Office and new administrative model after three years. The review will be other administrative offices in that they support the lines of presented to the College Faculty. communication between departments and the offices. For a specific DAC, agendas and minutes of each meeting will be emailed to all How will these proposals help the College save money? faculty whose departments and/or programs belong to that DAC. ASARC’s primary focus on academic goals will lead to financial These documents for all DACs will stored in an online archive such savings through a number of ensuing efficiencies. These include: as Blackboard to ensure widespread knowledge of the work of all collaborating through DACs with Communications and other DACs. campus offices to help attract and retain top-tier students; software adoptions; some pooled academic administrative labor; and What will be the nature of DAC-EPPC collaboration? ensuring, through reduced course releases for chairs, seats for 100 The DAC calendar of agenda items includes “Curriculum and students shifted from the Conservatory to Arts & Sciences. Faculty Positions Advanced Planning.” The hope is that DAC members will discuss their anticipated position requests and How will this reorganization impact the positions of AAs? find ways to use potential new hires to support each other’s Some academic administrative functions could be centralized curriculum. This support need not be conceived of as sharing an in a “shared services” model to address a wide range of essential FTE, but rather as opportunities for cross-listing courses or sharing tasks such as event planning, reimbursement, purchasing, travel, methods, intro, or capstone classes, if relevant. Furthermore, etc. Employees with specialized skills would provide efficient and curricular feedback from DACs could assist EPPC in understanding effective administrative support in these areas. Still other tasks the significance of faculty positions for the divisional curriculum. could be automated through the use of available technology. Any elimination in AA positions will ideally take place over some years Will this change lead to more meetings? through attrition. Proposed DAC meetings are once per month and are envisioned as largely taking the place of chairs’ meetings. DAC representatives How does the proposed service points model help people to not will receive service points. The proposed model also reduces the do too much service? What about those who seem to be doing too service burden of faculty and the workload of chairs through 1) a little? more equitable distribution of college service, 2) the introduction The model is not meant as a tool to micromanage individuals’ of several time-saving technologies, and 3) elimination and service points. Rather, it should help clarify service expectations, simplification of several chair tasks. make patterns more visible, identify individuals who are clearly doing too much or too little service on formal committees, and Are DACs just more work? engender conversations between those individuals, the Dean’s DACs are work, but we think it is time well spent because they Office, and the College Faculty Council to work toward solutions. are designed to achieve results. The topics to be examined DACs are currently inadequately addressed in a time-consuming ad How can faculty be involved in the purchase of new software that hoc manner by department chairs and other interested faculty. is intended to lead to greater administrative efficiency? Individual initiatives rarely gain the visibility necessary for results ASARC recognizes that all stakeholders (faculty, administrative at the institutional level. DACs will provide a results-oriented and assistants, and relevant offices) must be included in the process to efficient mechanism to address important priorities for Arts & choose the technology to be implemented—a function that DACs Sciences in a consultative and efficient manner. could readily facilitate.


What will the DACs do next year? Depending on what COVID-19 allows, we would begin implementing elements of the DACs and other features of the ASARC recommendations. Starting in the fall semester, DAC meetings will substitute for most chair’s meetings. We imagine DAC meetings next year as a means for departments/programs to shape how their DAC will operate moving forward. It will also be an opportunity to make additions to or adjust the calendar of agenda items proposed in this document.

How will DAC conveners be selected and trained? The selection of conveners will follow the current practice for selection of department chairs. Departments/programs will nominate individuals who will then be vetted by the Dean’s Office. Conveners will be trained by the Dean’s Office and will serve a 2-year term with the possibility of reappointment to additional terms.

Were other chair compensation models considered? Models with smoother relationships between total compensation points and stipends (in contrast to the presently proposed $500 increment system) and the use of multiple year compensation point averaging to determine course releases and stipends were considered. However, ASARC felt that the simpler incremental stipend system would be easier to manage from a bookkeeping perspective. ASARC also preferred resetting the chair compensation each year (instead of averaging over some longer time period) because this would ensure that the compensation more accurately reflects the work of each particular year. The compensation points for each department and program will be calculated in the preceding fall semester (based on projected faculty and staff levels and on the 3-year rolling average of the number of graduating majors) in order to determine the stipend and course release for the upcoming academic year. This early action should allow departments and programs to respond to any year-to-year fluctuations in the course release compensation. ASARC also considered the option for departments and programs to voluntarily increase their enrollments and/or assign other faculty to teach extra courses to create larger chair course releases than the current model allows, but decided that this option could lead to inappropriate pressure on individual faculty and potentially lead to unintentional inequities.

Will the new chair compensation model affect current chairs? Current chairs will continue to receive whatever compensation was outlined in their appointment letter until the end of their current term. Appointments to additional terms would be subject to the new system.



Chair* Member

Departments and DACs Primary Department 2 0

Joint Appointments: Service in Second Department or Program 2 2

Divisional Advisory Committees (DACs) 3 2

Elected Committees CFC, EPPC 4


Mediation, PCRC 2

Program Committees** GSFS, Cinema Studies, Comp Lit, Creative Writing, Environmental 2 2 Studies, First Year Seminar

3-2 Engineering, Jewish Studies 2 1

Curricular Committees Book Studies, Archaeological Studies, Cognitive Science, Committee 2 1 on Writing, Cultural Diversity, Oberlin in London, Education Studies, International Affairs, Latin American Studies, Law and Society, Linguistics, Peace and Conflict Studies, Russian and East European Studies, Statistical Modeling, Middle East and North African Studies, Journalism, Conservatory College Interdivisional Curricular Committee (CCICC)

Appointed College Academic Standing, Health Careers, Quantitative and Formal 2 1 Committees Reasoning, Individual Major

Appointed General Faculty Research and Development, Compensation, Assessment, 3 2 Committees Institutional Review Board, Student Life, Undergraduate Research, Fellowships (except Nexial, Science and At Large)

Admissions and Financial Aid, 2 1 Athletics, Mead-Swing, Winter Term, Advising, Community-Based Learning, Environmental Sustainability, Equity and Diversity, Honors System, Honorary Degrees, Institutional Animal Care and Use, Library, Musical Studies, Off-Campus Study, Election Judges, Fellowships (Nexial, Science and At Large)

* Ex officio chairs do not receive service points ** Program Committee points do not apply to those who are full time in the program


Draft Chair Compensation Spreadsheet

Number of Number of Other Staff Average Total Tenure Track Number of (A&PS/ Graduating Compensation Proposed Proposed Proposed Department Faculty Tenured Faculty Number of VAPs OCOPE) Majors 17-19 Points Stipend Course Release Service Points 3/2 ENGR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.67 26.70 $ 500.00 0.00 2 AAST 0.00 7.00 0.00 1.00 10.67 1606.70 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 ANTH 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 14.67 1146.70 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 ARCH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.67 36.70 $ 500.00 0.00 2 ARTH 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.50 19.33 1493.30 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 ARTS 0.00 6.00 1.00 1.50 24.67 1796.70 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 BIOL 0.00 12.00 0.00 5.00 56.33 3463.30 $ 2,500.00 1.50 2 CAST 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.67 871.70 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 CHEM 2.00 6.00 0.00 3.00 25.67 2406.70 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 CINE 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 23.33 833.30 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 CLAS 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 10.00 1100.00 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 CMPL 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.33 1013.30 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 CRWR 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 31.33 1763.30 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 CSCI 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 28.33 2433.30 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 DANC 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 5.67 1406.70 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 EAST 5.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 20.00 2825.00 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 ECON 5.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 46.67 2891.70 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 ENGL 0.00 12.00 0.50 0.00 40.33 2903.30 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 ENVS 2.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 45.00 2100.00 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 FR/IT 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 5.67 856.70 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 GEOL 1.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 14.67 1471.70 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 GERM 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.50 4.67 921.70 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 GSFS 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 597.50 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 HISP 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 10.00 1450.00 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 HIST 2.00 8.50 1.00 0.00 46.67 3016.70 $ 2,500.00 1.50 2 JWST 2.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.33 953.30 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 LATS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 50.00 $ 500.00 0.00 2 LAWS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.67 146.70 $ 500.00 0.00 2 MATH 2.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 2700.00 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 NEUR 1.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 29.67 1621.70 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 PHIL 1.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 11.67 1241.70 $ 1,500.00 0.00 2 PHYS 1.00 6.00 0.00 4.50 15.67 2131.70 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 POLT 3.00 7.00 2.00 0.00 57.67 3351.70 $ 2,500.00 1.50 2 PSYC 2.00 7.00 0.00 1.00 38.33 2533.30 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 RELG 2.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 15.33 2003.30 $ 2,500.00 1.00 2 RHET 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 900.00 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 RUSS 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.33 563.30 $ 1,000.00 0.00 2 SOCI 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 19.33 1518.30 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 THEA 0.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 16.67 1966.70 $ 2,000.00 0.50 2 Totals 51.50 144.50 22.00 42.00 787.69 62114.40 $ 66,500.00 17.50 78